The 10-year-old, from London, was in Brighton with his mother visiting friends on Wednesday.

Karen Kirk, from Worthing, who was showing the family around Brighton, said: “It was awful.

“We had been to the pier and were heading to get an ice-cream before they went home when we heard this almighty scream.

“I looked round and the bollard was on his foot. We managed to lift it off and his foot was black and blue almost instantly.”

A lifeguard rushed from the beach to carry out first aid while a worker from a nearby hotel brought out packs of ice.

The bollard was one of six painted in the traditional promenade light green on the section opposite the Queens Hotel.

He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London.

Ms Kirk said they checked the other bollards nearby after the incident and a number appeared to be “loose”.

She added: “I contacted the council but I haven’t heard anything back, which I think is pretty bad really.

“If it was a toddler or a baby it could have been much worse. It could have crushed them to death.”

Toni Manuel, Brighton and Hove City Council seafront development manager, said: “We are aware of the accident as one of our seafront officers gave assistance at the scene yesterday. “We are investigating the cause of the incident but our primary concern at this time is the welfare of the injured child and our thoughts are with him and his family.” The Argus asked the council if the bollard and others had been removed but they failed to respond.

The Argus also asked about maintenance and safety checks but they also failed to respond to that inquiry.

paul76 wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.

What?
Firstly - you have no idea whether he was jumping on anything.
Secondly - your troll-like lack of concern for this poor boy is unbelievable.
Thirdly - whether he was touching it or not, this was obviously a dangerous object - which has seriously hurt a child. As the article states thank god it wasn't a toddler. But in the meantime this young boy needs surgery (while you enjoy your day at your keyboard).

[quote][p][bold]paul76[/bold] wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.[/p][/quote]What?
Firstly - you have no idea whether he was jumping on anything.
Secondly - your troll-like lack of concern for this poor boy is unbelievable.
Thirdly - whether he was touching it or not, this was obviously a dangerous object - which has seriously hurt a child. As the article states thank god it wasn't a toddler. But in the meantime this young boy needs surgery (while you enjoy your day at your keyboard).scopey123

"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "

So surgery was required, but the family wanted it do occur in a hospital 60 miles away AFTER he had first been taken home?

What kind of parent would inflict that suffering on their child?

I smell a compensation claim for non-existent injuries. Let's hope the incident was captured on CCTV.

"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "
So surgery was required, but the family wanted it do occur in a hospital 60 miles away AFTER he had first been taken home?
What kind of parent would inflict that suffering on their child?
I smell a compensation claim for non-existent injuries. Let's hope the incident was captured on CCTV.ok,jared

My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.

My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.Lisa_67

Lisa_67 wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.

So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.[/p][/quote]So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?ok,jared

paul76 wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.

Hmmmm maybe we should keep children on a leash. Hmmmm maybe we should ensure they never have fun. Hmmmm lets say he was leap frogging ( even though this is an assumption on your part) - what's the problem with that? One would assume a cast iron bollard would be strong enough to take the weight of a 10 year old, kids (and adults) like to leapfrog, no big deal, it wasn't a flimsy piece of ply wood.

[quote][p][bold]paul76[/bold] wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.[/p][/quote]Hmmmm maybe we should keep children on a leash. Hmmmm maybe we should ensure they never have fun. Hmmmm lets say he was leap frogging ( even though this is an assumption on your part) - what's the problem with that? One would assume a cast iron bollard would be strong enough to take the weight of a 10 year old, kids (and adults) like to leapfrog, no big deal, it wasn't a flimsy piece of ply wood.Lisa_67

inkjet wrote:
This looks like &quot;where there is blame there is a claim" scenario if ever I saw one

So what exactly does a where there's blame there's a claim look like?
Does it look like this?
Child has bollard land on foot
Hospital says he will need surgery, they didn't say emergency surgery
Child is distressed and wants to be closer to family- especially his dad.
Hospital agrees that he can travel to a closer to home hospital and administers pain relief.
Child was driven straight to hospital, who were expecting him.
Surgery took place the following morning- doctors agree that it is a very badly crushed foot.
Doctors expect child will need further surgery as he grows.
Nobody has even mentioned compensation, but in this case it stands to reason that he might be entitled to some.
Loving the compassion guys!

[quote][p][bold]inkjet[/bold] wrote:
This looks like "where there is blame there is a claim" scenario if ever I saw one[/p][/quote]So what exactly does a where there's blame there's a claim look like?
Does it look like this?
Child has bollard land on foot
Hospital says he will need surgery, they didn't say emergency surgery
Child is distressed and wants to be closer to family- especially his dad.
Hospital agrees that he can travel to a closer to home hospital and administers pain relief.
Child was driven straight to hospital, who were expecting him.
Surgery took place the following morning- doctors agree that it is a very badly crushed foot.
Doctors expect child will need further surgery as he grows.
Nobody has even mentioned compensation, but in this case it stands to reason that he might be entitled to some.
Loving the compassion guys!Lisa_67

Lisa_67 wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.

So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.[/p][/quote]So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?[/p][/quote]Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?Lisa_67

His foot was "crushed". He needed surgery. Have a think about that. Or are you all too crazy to understand what that means.

None of you have the foggiest idea what happened - yet you claim this was all set up for insurance reasons.

I may be totally naive but this is a 10 year old boy we are talking about that needed surgery. Several people came to his and his family's aid - obviously because there was an injury.

Again, i repeat an injury to a 10 year old boy.

Christ Brighton is full of nutters.

Are you all completely insane?
His foot was "crushed". He needed surgery. Have a think about that. Or are you all too crazy to understand what that means.
None of you have the foggiest idea what happened - yet you claim this was all set up for insurance reasons.
I may be totally naive but this is a 10 year old boy we are talking about that needed surgery. Several people came to his and his family's aid - obviously because there was an injury.
Again, i repeat an injury to a 10 year old boy.
Christ Brighton is full of nutters.scopey123

Lisa_67 wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.

So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?

The setting of where the surgery took place is very relevant to the amount of pain he was suffering.

I'll ask the question again - why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.[/p][/quote]So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?[/p][/quote]Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?[/p][/quote]The setting of where the surgery took place is very relevant to the amount of pain he was suffering.
I'll ask the question again - why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?ok,jared

His foot was &quot;crushed". He needed surgery. Have a think about that. Or are you all too crazy to understand what that means.

None of you have the foggiest idea what happened - yet you claim this was all set up for insurance reasons.

I may be totally naive but this is a 10 year old boy we are talking about that needed surgery. Several people came to his and his family's aid - obviously because there was an injury.

Again, i repeat an injury to a 10 year old boy.

Christ Brighton is full of nutters.

If he needed surgery that badly, why did his mother remove him from a place that was offering to do it immediately and take him home?

[quote][p][bold]scopey123[/bold] wrote:
Are you all completely insane?
His foot was "crushed". He needed surgery. Have a think about that. Or are you all too crazy to understand what that means.
None of you have the foggiest idea what happened - yet you claim this was all set up for insurance reasons.
I may be totally naive but this is a 10 year old boy we are talking about that needed surgery. Several people came to his and his family's aid - obviously because there was an injury.
Again, i repeat an injury to a 10 year old boy.
Christ Brighton is full of nutters.[/p][/quote]If he needed surgery that badly, why did his mother remove him from a place that was offering to do it immediately and take him home?ok,jared

"Nobody has even mentioned compensation, but in this case it stands to reason that he might be entitled to some. "

So this is basically about compensation.

Forget the injury that the mother didn't want treating. Just get the claims people on the line and take it from there.

"Nobody has even mentioned compensation, but in this case it stands to reason that he might be entitled to some. "
So this is basically about compensation.
Forget the injury that the mother didn't want treating. Just get the claims people on the line and take it from there.ok,jared

I expect that the child wanted to be operated on in London, where he lives, so that his family would be close to him while he has to spend time in hospital.
It doesn't state whether there are siblings but I should imagine that having a child in hospital 50 miles from where you live is not very nice. Add other children into the mix and it becomes a bit of a nightmare i should think.
I don't find his families expectation that street furniture erected in a public / tourist area of Brighton be safe to be an unreasonable one either. I wander around Brighton regularly and I don't expect bollards, benches and/or street light to fall over and crush me!

I expect that the child wanted to be operated on in London, where he lives, so that his family would be close to him while he has to spend time in hospital.
It doesn't state whether there are siblings but I should imagine that having a child in hospital 50 miles from where you live is not very nice. Add other children into the mix and it becomes a bit of a nightmare i should think.
I don't find his families expectation that street furniture erected in a public / tourist area of Brighton be safe to be an unreasonable one either. I wander around Brighton regularly and I don't expect bollards, benches and/or street light to fall over and crush me!MzEden1

Lisa_67 wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.

So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?

The setting of where the surgery took place is very relevant to the amount of pain he was suffering.

I'll ask the question again - why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child.

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.[/p][/quote]So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?[/p][/quote]Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?[/p][/quote]The setting of where the surgery took place is very relevant to the amount of pain he was suffering.
I'll ask the question again - why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?[/p][/quote]Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child.Lisa_67

ok,jared wrote:
&quot;Nobody has even mentioned compensation, but in this case it stands to reason that he might be entitled to some. "

So this is basically about compensation.

Forget the injury that the mother didn't want treating. Just get the claims people on the line and take it from there.

There isn't any question as to whether the mother wanted treatment- she absolutely did. This is not about compensation, it is an article highlighting the fact that there were unsafe bollards, which caused a serious trauma to a child and, luckily was not as bad as it might have been. I suggest some of you are judging by your own standards. Compensation is currently the least of the mothers concerns.

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
"Nobody has even mentioned compensation, but in this case it stands to reason that he might be entitled to some. "
So this is basically about compensation.
Forget the injury that the mother didn't want treating. Just get the claims people on the line and take it from there.[/p][/quote]There isn't any question as to whether the mother wanted treatment- she absolutely did. This is not about compensation, it is an article highlighting the fact that there were unsafe bollards, which caused a serious trauma to a child and, luckily was not as bad as it might have been. I suggest some of you are judging by your own standards. Compensation is currently the least of the mothers concerns.Lisa_67

"Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child."

You seem to know an awful lot about this, Lisa.

Are you the mother?

The report states:

"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "

ASAP means as soon as possible, and I'll take the words of the medics over yours any day.

And why didn't the mother impress upon him the need for immediate surgery? Of course he was upset and 'wanted his Daddy', but his mother was with him and SHE should have ensured he left that hospital having had the surgery completed on the spot.

"His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being."

And driving back to Essex with a crushed foot was?

"He was not taken home first. "

Yes he was:

"the distressed youngster wanted to get home"

If he wanted to get home quickly, the best way of achieving that wasn't driving via a hospital in Essex but by having the operation performed in the building where he currently was.

"Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child."
You seem to know an awful lot about this, Lisa.
Are you the mother?
The report states:
"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "
ASAP means as soon as possible, and I'll take the words of the medics over yours any day.
And why didn't the mother impress upon him the need for immediate surgery? Of course he was upset and 'wanted his Daddy', but his mother was with him and SHE should have ensured he left that hospital having had the surgery completed on the spot.
"His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being."
And driving back to Essex with a crushed foot was?
"He was not taken home first. "
Yes he was:
"the distressed youngster wanted to get home"
If he wanted to get home quickly, the best way of achieving that wasn't driving via a hospital in Essex but by having the operation performed in the building where he currently was.ok,jared

Lisa_67 wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.

So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?

The setting of where the surgery took place is very relevant to the amount of pain he was suffering.

I'll ask the question again - why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?

Seeing as you've asked the question again, I will explain again. This time I will try to make it as clear as possible, perhaps my previous posts have lacked clarity.
The child was very distressed at being so far from home. Discussion with the medics in Sussex resulted in an agreement that the one and a half hour journey to his local hospital would be more conducive to his well being. He was given pain medication to last the journey. Also please note that although the article states that he needed surgery ASAP, the hospitals idea of ASAP was the next day. He had his surgery the next day, just as he would have had he strayed in Brighton. Where's the problem?

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.[/p][/quote]So why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?[/p][/quote]Why is the surgery setting relevant?
Do you think that there is more chance of compensation if one gets their surgery in an Essex hospital?[/p][/quote]The setting of where the surgery took place is very relevant to the amount of pain he was suffering.
I'll ask the question again - why wasn't he operated on in Sussex?[/p][/quote]Seeing as you've asked the question again, I will explain again. This time I will try to make it as clear as possible, perhaps my previous posts have lacked clarity.
The child was very distressed at being so far from home. Discussion with the medics in Sussex resulted in an agreement that the one and a half hour journey to his local hospital would be more conducive to his well being. He was given pain medication to last the journey. Also please note that although the article states that he needed surgery ASAP, the hospitals idea of ASAP was the next day. He had his surgery the next day, just as he would have had he strayed in Brighton. Where's the problem?Lisa_67

MzEden1 wrote:
I expect that the child wanted to be operated on in London, where he lives, so that his family would be close to him while he has to spend time in hospital.
It doesn't state whether there are siblings but I should imagine that having a child in hospital 50 miles from where you live is not very nice. Add other children into the mix and it becomes a bit of a nightmare i should think.
I don't find his families expectation that street furniture erected in a public / tourist area of Brighton be safe to be an unreasonable one either. I wander around Brighton regularly and I don't expect bollards, benches and/or street light to fall over and crush me!

Even if you go playing on them?

[quote][p][bold]MzEden1[/bold] wrote:
I expect that the child wanted to be operated on in London, where he lives, so that his family would be close to him while he has to spend time in hospital.
It doesn't state whether there are siblings but I should imagine that having a child in hospital 50 miles from where you live is not very nice. Add other children into the mix and it becomes a bit of a nightmare i should think.
I don't find his families expectation that street furniture erected in a public / tourist area of Brighton be safe to be an unreasonable one either. I wander around Brighton regularly and I don't expect bollards, benches and/or street light to fall over and crush me![/p][/quote]Even if you go playing on them?ok,jared

ok,jared wrote:
&quot;Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child."

You seem to know an awful lot about this, Lisa.

Are you the mother?

The report states:

"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "

ASAP means as soon as possible, and I'll take the words of the medics over yours any day.

And why didn't the mother impress upon him the need for immediate surgery? Of course he was upset and 'wanted his Daddy', but his mother was with him and SHE should have ensured he left that hospital having had the surgery completed on the spot.

"His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being."

And driving back to Essex with a crushed foot was?

"He was not taken home first. "

Yes he was:

"the distressed youngster wanted to get home"

If he wanted to get home quickly, the best way of achieving that wasn't driving via a hospital in Essex but by having the operation performed in the building where he currently was.

Ok HE DID NOT GO HOME FIRST. I am not the mother.
Since when did patients get to decide when hospitals perform surgery?

And NO COMPENSATION IS NOT CURRENTLY A CONCERN.
I apologise for sending the same post twice earlier.
You are clearly convinced that you know the mother's motives, therefore there is no point in discussing it any further.
Your lack of empathy is sad.

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
"Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child."
You seem to know an awful lot about this, Lisa.
Are you the mother?
The report states:
"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "
ASAP means as soon as possible, and I'll take the words of the medics over yours any day.
And why didn't the mother impress upon him the need for immediate surgery? Of course he was upset and 'wanted his Daddy', but his mother was with him and SHE should have ensured he left that hospital having had the surgery completed on the spot.
"His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being."
And driving back to Essex with a crushed foot was?
"He was not taken home first. "
Yes he was:
"the distressed youngster wanted to get home"
If he wanted to get home quickly, the best way of achieving that wasn't driving via a hospital in Essex but by having the operation performed in the building where he currently was.[/p][/quote]Ok HE DID NOT GO HOME FIRST. I am not the mother.
Since when did patients get to decide when hospitals perform surgery?
And NO COMPENSATION IS NOT CURRENTLY A CONCERN.
I apologise for sending the same post twice earlier.
You are clearly convinced that you know the mother's motives, therefore there is no point in discussing it any further.
Your lack of empathy is sad.Lisa_67

Lisa_67 wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.

We are all aware and have commented about the poor state of repair of the Seafront.
Perhaps the Council might have to cordon off vast areas because of falling or unsafe railings and Bollards. Health & Safety should be foremost in some Councilors mind.

But if you want compo get down there right away and see what's loose.

[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
My faith in humanity is somewhat broken by the vile comments made in this post. The injuries are far from nonexistent- the foot has been very badly crushed. The child wanted to be closer to home, with his family, he was not put into any danger on the journey. If compensation is received it will be due to the fact that the Local Authority have been negligent.
I imagine his mother would much rather he had an intact foot and that her son could go back to school next week with his friends. He is not some work shy layabout looking for a handout. He is a 10 year old boy who has just suffered a fairly agonising trauma. Some of you commentators ought to be ashamed of yourself. Unless, of course, you have some psychic abilities which allow you to know the thoughts and motives of a woman you have never met before.[/p][/quote]We are all aware and have commented about the poor state of repair of the Seafront.
Perhaps the Council might have to cordon off vast areas because of falling or unsafe railings and Bollards. Health & Safety should be foremost in some Councilors mind.
But if you want compo get down there right away and see what's loose.Nosfaratu

Ok, jared, your comments are defamatory and potentially libellous.
Recent cases mean that you are not immune from libel laws on the internet. Your allegations against the mother are false and unfounded. Due to the fact that her son has been named in the article, she is identifiable and your comments are clearly damaging to her reputation.
You accused her of lying about her intentions to go to another hospital and that she kept her son at home in agony overnight. These are totally fabricated facts, fabricated by you.
An apology would be a good starting point.

Ok, jared, your comments are defamatory and potentially libellous.
Recent cases mean that you are not immune from libel laws on the internet. Your allegations against the mother are false and unfounded. Due to the fact that her son has been named in the article, she is identifiable and your comments are clearly damaging to her reputation.
You accused her of lying about her intentions to go to another hospital and that she kept her son at home in agony overnight. These are totally fabricated facts, fabricated by you.
An apology would be a good starting point.Lisa_67

Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)

Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)Lisa_67

Lisa_67 wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)

You won't get an apology I'm afraid as he thinks he is always right.

[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)[/p][/quote]You won't get an apology I'm afraid as he thinks he is always right.Nikski

For instance, the Sussex hospital gave him only enough painkillers for a ride to the hospital, yet when challenged on this, we suddenly get:He went straight to his local hospital, who were expecting him and had his surgery booked for the next day. He spent the night in hospital, he did not suffer any pain, other than at the point of the accident. "

So the pain miraculously vanished despite the urgent need (according to Sussex) for surgery.

How does Lisa know this if she wasn't with him at this time?

"Had the doctors said it wasn't a good idea to take him to another hospital, he would have remained in Sussex."

The report says that Sussex said surgery should occur 'asap', as we've discussed. Lisa claims to know that the medics didn't mean asap when they said 'asap', which is odd seeing as she wasn't there.

Lisa then screams:

"THE HOSPITAL DID NOT CONSIDER IT AN EMERGENCY AND HAD NO PLANS TO OPERATE THAT DAY. "

Which contradicts what Sussex was reported as saying about 'as soon as possible'.

Again, Lisa wasn't there.

Lisa also claims:

"He has had his toes wired back together. He has to wait for the swelling to go down before he can have a cast and there is an expectation that he will need further ops as he gets older. "

Again, for someone who has no connection to all this, she 'knows' an awful lot about it.

Of course, we only have her word for it, but if a foot required wiring 'asap', then no responsible mother would have delayed that by a minute, never mind 24 hours.

Oh, and why was the mother so confident that the Essex hospital would be able to operate 'asap'? It clearly wasn't - the child had to remain in hospital overnight pending the arrival of someone who could perform the surgery. Had she phoned ahead? Had Sussex phoned ahead? if so, Essex would have informed Sussex that it would be the following day for surgery - there is no way that child would have been allowed to leave the Sussex hospital.

" Your allegations against the mother are false and unfounded. "

Everything I've said about her is based on what the Argus an you have said, so the chances of a prosecution against me are nil.

Toodles!

Lisa's story continues to unravel.
She claims to know an awful lot of what was said and done.
New additions to her story keep popping up when flaws are exposed.
For instance, the Sussex hospital gave him only enough painkillers for a ride to the hospital, yet when challenged on this, we suddenly get:He went straight to his local hospital, who were expecting him and had his surgery booked for the next day. He spent the night in hospital, he did not suffer any pain, other than at the point of the accident. "
So the pain miraculously vanished despite the urgent need (according to Sussex) for surgery.
How does Lisa know this if she wasn't with him at this time?
"Had the doctors said it wasn't a good idea to take him to another hospital, he would have remained in Sussex."
The report says that Sussex said surgery should occur 'asap', as we've discussed. Lisa claims to know that the medics didn't mean asap when they said 'asap', which is odd seeing as she wasn't there.
Lisa then screams:
"THE HOSPITAL DID NOT CONSIDER IT AN EMERGENCY AND HAD NO PLANS TO OPERATE THAT DAY. "
Which contradicts what Sussex was reported as saying about 'as soon as possible'.
Again, Lisa wasn't there.
Lisa also claims:
"He has had his toes wired back together. He has to wait for the swelling to go down before he can have a cast and there is an expectation that he will need further ops as he gets older. "
Again, for someone who has no connection to all this, she 'knows' an awful lot about it.
Of course, we only have her word for it, but if a foot required wiring 'asap', then no responsible mother would have delayed that by a minute, never mind 24 hours.
Oh, and why was the mother so confident that the Essex hospital would be able to operate 'asap'? It clearly wasn't - the child had to remain in hospital overnight pending the arrival of someone who could perform the surgery. Had she phoned ahead? Had Sussex phoned ahead? if so, Essex would have informed Sussex that it would be the following day for surgery - there is no way that child would have been allowed to leave the Sussex hospital.
" Your allegations against the mother are false and unfounded. "
Everything I've said about her is based on what the Argus an you have said, so the chances of a prosecution against me are nil.
Toodles!ok,jared

For instance, the Sussex hospital gave him only enough painkillers for a ride to the hospital, yet when challenged on this, we suddenly get:He went straight to his local hospital, who were expecting him and had his surgery booked for the next day. He spent the night in hospital, he did not suffer any pain, other than at the point of the accident. &quot;

So the pain miraculously vanished despite the urgent need (according to Sussex) for surgery.

How does Lisa know this if she wasn't with him at this time?

"Had the doctors said it wasn't a good idea to take him to another hospital, he would have remained in Sussex."

The report says that Sussex said surgery should occur 'asap', as we've discussed. Lisa claims to know that the medics didn't mean asap when they said 'asap', which is odd seeing as she wasn't there.

Lisa then screams:

"THE HOSPITAL DID NOT CONSIDER IT AN EMERGENCY AND HAD NO PLANS TO OPERATE THAT DAY. "

Which contradicts what Sussex was reported as saying about 'as soon as possible'.

Again, Lisa wasn't there.

Lisa also claims:

"He has had his toes wired back together. He has to wait for the swelling to go down before he can have a cast and there is an expectation that he will need further ops as he gets older. "

Again, for someone who has no connection to all this, she 'knows' an awful lot about it.

Of course, we only have her word for it, but if a foot required wiring 'asap', then no responsible mother would have delayed that by a minute, never mind 24 hours.

Oh, and why was the mother so confident that the Essex hospital would be able to operate 'asap'? It clearly wasn't - the child had to remain in hospital overnight pending the arrival of someone who could perform the surgery. Had she phoned ahead? Had Sussex phoned ahead? if so, Essex would have informed Sussex that it would be the following day for surgery - there is no way that child would have been allowed to leave the Sussex hospital.

" Your allegations against the mother are false and unfounded. "

Everything I've said about her is based on what the Argus an you have said, so the chances of a prosecution against me are nil.

Toodles!

Yes the hospital did phone ahead. ASAP is not the same as immediately. You accused the mother of lying about her intentions and have asserted that she took him home where he spent the night in agonising pain. Please can you refer me to the sections of the news report that states these mad 'facts' ? They are false. Nobody would bother to prosecute you, because there is no pleasure to be gained from 'owning' the psychologically disturbed.
The pain relief was given to last the journey, but it wasnt just 90 minutes worth- stop being so silly. A little boy had his foot crushed due to council negligence, there might be compensation for him, there might not. The council were aware the bollards were loose. His family couldn't care less about it. You're my first encounter with a troll- it's not very nice. The internet is a great place for socially inept losers- enjoy.
Hopefully one day you will be able to interact sensibly with people in real life.

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
Lisa's story continues to unravel.
She claims to know an awful lot of what was said and done.
New additions to her story keep popping up when flaws are exposed.
For instance, the Sussex hospital gave him only enough painkillers for a ride to the hospital, yet when challenged on this, we suddenly get:He went straight to his local hospital, who were expecting him and had his surgery booked for the next day. He spent the night in hospital, he did not suffer any pain, other than at the point of the accident. "
So the pain miraculously vanished despite the urgent need (according to Sussex) for surgery.
How does Lisa know this if she wasn't with him at this time?
"Had the doctors said it wasn't a good idea to take him to another hospital, he would have remained in Sussex."
The report says that Sussex said surgery should occur 'asap', as we've discussed. Lisa claims to know that the medics didn't mean asap when they said 'asap', which is odd seeing as she wasn't there.
Lisa then screams:
"THE HOSPITAL DID NOT CONSIDER IT AN EMERGENCY AND HAD NO PLANS TO OPERATE THAT DAY. "
Which contradicts what Sussex was reported as saying about 'as soon as possible'.
Again, Lisa wasn't there.
Lisa also claims:
"He has had his toes wired back together. He has to wait for the swelling to go down before he can have a cast and there is an expectation that he will need further ops as he gets older. "
Again, for someone who has no connection to all this, she 'knows' an awful lot about it.
Of course, we only have her word for it, but if a foot required wiring 'asap', then no responsible mother would have delayed that by a minute, never mind 24 hours.
Oh, and why was the mother so confident that the Essex hospital would be able to operate 'asap'? It clearly wasn't - the child had to remain in hospital overnight pending the arrival of someone who could perform the surgery. Had she phoned ahead? Had Sussex phoned ahead? if so, Essex would have informed Sussex that it would be the following day for surgery - there is no way that child would have been allowed to leave the Sussex hospital.
" Your allegations against the mother are false and unfounded. "
Everything I've said about her is based on what the Argus an you have said, so the chances of a prosecution against me are nil.
Toodles![/p][/quote]Yes the hospital did phone ahead. ASAP is not the same as immediately. You accused the mother of lying about her intentions and have asserted that she took him home where he spent the night in agonising pain. Please can you refer me to the sections of the news report that states these mad 'facts' ? They are false. Nobody would bother to prosecute you, because there is no pleasure to be gained from 'owning' the psychologically disturbed.
The pain relief was given to last the journey, but it wasnt just 90 minutes worth- stop being so silly. A little boy had his foot crushed due to council negligence, there might be compensation for him, there might not. The council were aware the bollards were loose. His family couldn't care less about it. You're my first encounter with a troll- it's not very nice. The internet is a great place for socially inept losers- enjoy.
Hopefully one day you will be able to interact sensibly with people in real life.Lisa_67

Lisa_67 wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)

He's not the only one who enjoys baiting people.
They actually argue amongst themselves, go off on tangents and make the whole point of the conversation meaningless.

[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)[/p][/quote]He's not the only one who enjoys baiting people.
They actually argue amongst themselves, go off on tangents and make the whole point of the conversation meaningless.Nosfaratu

ok,jared wrote:
&quot;Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child."

You seem to know an awful lot about this, Lisa.

Are you the mother?

The report states:

"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "

ASAP means as soon as possible, and I'll take the words of the medics over yours any day.

And why didn't the mother impress upon him the need for immediate surgery? Of course he was upset and 'wanted his Daddy', but his mother was with him and SHE should have ensured he left that hospital having had the surgery completed on the spot.

"His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being."

And driving back to Essex with a crushed foot was?

"He was not taken home first. "

Yes he was:

"the distressed youngster wanted to get home"

If he wanted to get home quickly, the best way of achieving that wasn't driving via a hospital in Essex but by having the operation performed in the building where he currently was.

What a utter tw@t.

My best wishes to the family concerned - I hope the little boy makes a full and quick recovery x

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
"Seeing as you've asked the question again, I'll explain again. This time I'll make the explanation as clear as possible.
The child was distressed and wanted to be closer to home. He was not taken home first. He went straight to hospital. His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being. The mother was not against the surgery, but having discussed the situation with medics in Sussex it was agreed that it would be okay to transfer him. Please note that although the article says he needed surgery ASAP, their idea of ASAP was the following day. So they took the decision to make the one and a half hour journey home. The decision was not made on a whim or out of a lack of concern for the child."
You seem to know an awful lot about this, Lisa.
Are you the mother?
The report states:
"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "
ASAP means as soon as possible, and I'll take the words of the medics over yours any day.
And why didn't the mother impress upon him the need for immediate surgery? Of course he was upset and 'wanted his Daddy', but his mother was with him and SHE should have ensured he left that hospital having had the surgery completed on the spot.
"His distress at being so far away was not conducive to his well being."
And driving back to Essex with a crushed foot was?
"He was not taken home first. "
Yes he was:
"the distressed youngster wanted to get home"
If he wanted to get home quickly, the best way of achieving that wasn't driving via a hospital in Essex but by having the operation performed in the building where he currently was.[/p][/quote]What a utter tw@t.
My best wishes to the family concerned - I hope the little boy makes a full and quick recovery xEddddd27

You weren't there, remember, so you cannot possibly know what happened in that hospital.

Oh, and if Sussex DID ring ahead, it would have learned that the operation wasn't going to happen that day.

There is no way that Sussex would have let that injured child requiring an operation 'as soon as possible' to have left the premises, and no responsible mother would have taken her child away.

ASAP is not the same as immediately."

I never said it was.

I said that the Sussex hospital told her the operation had to occur asap, and seeing as he was already in one......the report also states:

"medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible"

So Sussex were ready.

"You accused the mother of lying about her intentions and have asserted that she took him home where he spent the night in agonising pain. "

I suggested that could have happened.

The report states:

"the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "

His desire to be 'home' added to the fact that the operation actually took place at a later date. We only have your word (someone who wasn't involved) that actually happened.

"The pain relief was given to last the journey, but it wasnt just 90 minutes worth"

You stated:

" He was given pain medication to last the journey."

That was for the journey back home, seeing as the Sussex hospital already knew that the operation in Essex wouldn't be happening that day.

" A little boy had his foot crushed due to council negligence"

There is no evidence of that.

The bollard was obviously upright and not interfering with anyone - how can the council be negligent?

"there might be compensation for him, there might not."

But I'm sure the family will be looking into that.

" The council were aware the bollards were loose."

There is no evidence of that.

"His family couldn't care less about it. "

How do you know?

Admit it, Lisa, you're the mother, and you've been caught out putting your child through misery and pain in a bid to get some cash from this city.

"Yes the hospital did phone ahead."
How do you know?
That phone call would have taken place away from A&E.
You weren't there, remember, so you cannot possibly know what happened in that hospital.
Oh, and if Sussex DID ring ahead, it would have learned that the operation wasn't going to happen that day.
There is no way that Sussex would have let that injured child requiring an operation 'as soon as possible' to have left the premises, and no responsible mother would have taken her child away.
ASAP is not the same as immediately."
I never said it was.
I said that the Sussex hospital told her the operation had to occur asap, and seeing as he was already in one......the report also states:
"medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible"
So Sussex were ready.
"You accused the mother of lying about her intentions and have asserted that she took him home where he spent the night in agonising pain. "
I suggested that could have happened.
The report states:
"the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "
His desire to be 'home' added to the fact that the operation actually took place at a later date. We only have your word (someone who wasn't involved) that actually happened.
"The pain relief was given to last the journey, but it wasnt just 90 minutes worth"
You stated:
" He was given pain medication to last the journey."
That was for the journey back home, seeing as the Sussex hospital already knew that the operation in Essex wouldn't be happening that day.
" A little boy had his foot crushed due to council negligence"
There is no evidence of that.
The bollard was obviously upright and not interfering with anyone - how can the council be negligent?
"there might be compensation for him, there might not."
But I'm sure the family will be looking into that.
" The council were aware the bollards were loose."
There is no evidence of that.
"His family couldn't care less about it. "
How do you know?
Admit it, Lisa, you're the mother, and you've been caught out putting your child through misery and pain in a bid to get some cash from this city.ok,jared

Lisa_67 wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)

He's not the only one who enjoys baiting people.
They actually argue amongst themselves, go off on tangents and make the whole point of the conversation meaningless.

Feel free to demolish any of my points, but we both know I'm right on all this.

[quote][p][bold]Nosfaratu[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)[/p][/quote]He's not the only one who enjoys baiting people.
They actually argue amongst themselves, go off on tangents and make the whole point of the conversation meaningless.[/p][/quote]Feel free to demolish any of my points, but we both know I'm right on all this.ok,jared

" “We had been to the pier and were heading to get an ice-cream before they went home when we heard this almighty scream.

“I looked round and the bollard was on his foot. "

So NOT ONE PERSON from that group saw what happened.

So how can Mother Lisa claim that a loose bollard was to blame?

She didn't see what happened to her son.

Oh dear!
" “We had been to the pier and were heading to get an ice-cream before they went home when we heard this almighty scream.
“I looked round and the bollard was on his foot. "
So NOT ONE PERSON from that group saw what happened.
So how can Mother Lisa claim that a loose bollard was to blame?
She didn't see what happened to her son.ok,jared

Lisa_67 wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)

You won't get an apology I'm afraid as he thinks he is always right.

If you see that someone is wrong, prove it.

[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lisa_67[/bold] wrote:
Appreciate that Nikski. New to the site so wasn't sure if he had genuine opinions, shared by others. It's upsetting to see a friend being publicly defamed. I won't hold my breath for an apology then :)[/p][/quote]You won't get an apology I'm afraid as he thinks he is always right.[/p][/quote]If you see that someone is wrong, prove it.ok,jared

As a seafront trader, I feel that the seafront office who have a relatively easy job throughout the year to undertake daily patrols along the seafront have let us all down time and time again. Chris ingall the new seafront officer, many of us feel is totally inexperienced to manage the health and safety issues of the seafront. He should write public apology and to the family themselves, for the a section of the promenade which is regularly partrolled and has simply been purposefully ignored. Daily patrols are constantly undertaking locking of the gates and seafront officers routinely pass this section of the seafront.

This should be a top priority as a council employee, where we all pay taxs for there wages. Secondly, he should ultimately take reasonsibility for the failings in the seafront service to attend to simple health and safety issues. It is negligible and the seafront office are at fault here, not matter how much hot air they blow as a council service.

As a seafront trader, I feel that the seafront office who have a relatively easy job throughout the year to undertake daily patrols along the seafront have let us all down time and time again. Chris ingall the new seafront officer, many of us feel is totally inexperienced to manage the health and safety issues of the seafront. He should write public apology and to the family themselves, for the a section of the promenade which is regularly partrolled and has simply been purposefully ignored. Daily patrols are constantly undertaking locking of the gates and seafront officers routinely pass this section of the seafront.
This should be a top priority as a council employee, where we all pay taxs for there wages. Secondly, he should ultimately take reasonsibility for the failings in the seafront service to attend to simple health and safety issues. It is negligible and the seafront office are at fault here, not matter how much hot air they blow as a council service.Hove Neighbours

MasonStorm wrote:
Where there's a blame, there's a claim. It's a shame these parents couldn't take better care of their child and are only after £££.

Nice one Mason Storm- really insightful. Troll on mate :)

[quote][p][bold]MasonStorm[/bold] wrote:
Where there's a blame, there's a claim. It's a shame these parents couldn't take better care of their child and are only after £££.[/p][/quote]Nice one Mason Storm- really insightful. Troll on mate :)Lisa_67

ok,jared wrote:
&quot;He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "

So surgery was required, but the family wanted it do occur in a hospital 60 miles away AFTER he had first been taken home?

What kind of parent would inflict that suffering on their child?

I smell a compensation claim for non-existent injuries. Let's hope the incident was captured on CCTV.

Whilst I agree with every point..as always....and also suspect the cockney ethnic chav was leap frogging it .....I would also think twice before getting an op at Sussex County too....

[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote:
"He was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital where doctors assessed the injury. But although medical staff wanted to perform surgery as soon as possible, the distressed youngster wanted to get home and it was decided he would be operated on at a hospital in London. "
So surgery was required, but the family wanted it do occur in a hospital 60 miles away AFTER he had first been taken home?
What kind of parent would inflict that suffering on their child?
I smell a compensation claim for non-existent injuries. Let's hope the incident was captured on CCTV.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with every point..as always....and also suspect the cockney ethnic chav was leap frogging it .....I would also think twice before getting an op at Sussex County too....Valentinian

paul76 wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.

What?
Firstly - you have no idea whether he was jumping on anything.
Secondly - your troll-like lack of concern for this poor boy is unbelievable.
Thirdly - whether he was touching it or not, this was obviously a dangerous object - which has seriously hurt a child. As the article states thank god it wasn't a toddler. But in the meantime this young boy needs surgery (while you enjoy your day at your keyboard).

To the ignorant people saying compensation get a life he is a 10 year old boy. 1st he wasn't jumping its a 4 and a half foot bollard like to see a full man jump it. 2nd the post had rotted and was not attached 3rd have a look at CCTV and it is impossible for you to knock over a half ton bollard then run in front of it and get your foot trapped under it , (someone walking past knocked the post my accident)Finally the child has a twin sister who was beside herself who witnessed this. The boy wanted his Dad who was in London the mother and the surgeon from the Royal Sussex both agreed getting him back home to a local hospital the best option. And to anyone who is interested he has been extremely brave and has had a successful operation to rebuild his big toe and repair his foot he will be undergoing further hospital treatment on his foot as he grows but is happy to be home now!

[quote][p][bold]scopey123[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]paul76[/bold] wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.[/p][/quote]What?
Firstly - you have no idea whether he was jumping on anything.
Secondly - your troll-like lack of concern for this poor boy is unbelievable.
Thirdly - whether he was touching it or not, this was obviously a dangerous object - which has seriously hurt a child. As the article states thank god it wasn't a toddler. But in the meantime this young boy needs surgery (while you enjoy your day at your keyboard).[/p][/quote]To the ignorant people saying compensation get a life he is a 10 year old boy. 1st he wasn't jumping its a 4 and a half foot bollard like to see a full man jump it. 2nd the post had rotted and was not attached 3rd have a look at CCTV and it is impossible for you to knock over a half ton bollard then run in front of it and get your foot trapped under it , (someone walking past knocked the post my accident)Finally the child has a twin sister who was beside herself who witnessed this. The boy wanted his Dad who was in London the mother and the surgeon from the Royal Sussex both agreed getting him back home to a local hospital the best option. And to anyone who is interested he has been extremely brave and has had a successful operation to rebuild his big toe and repair his foot he will be undergoing further hospital treatment on his foot as he grows but is happy to be home now!Maxmoll67

"To the ignorant people saying compensation get a life he is a 10 year old boy. "

And?

There is nothing to stop the parents putting in a claim.

You seem to know an awful lot about this. Were you there?Did you see it?

"1st he wasn't jumping its a 4 and a half foot bollard like to see a full man jump it. 2nd the post had rotted and was not attached 3rd have a look at CCTV and it is impossible for you to knock over a half ton bollard then run in front of it and get your foot trapped under it , (someone walking past knocked the post my accident)"

You seem to know an awful lot about this. Were you there?Did you see it?

"Finally the child has a twin sister who was beside herself who witnessed this."

The twin didn't see the bollard fall.

None of the party did.

" The boy wanted his Dad"

That's understandable.

" who was in London the mother and the surgeon from the Royal Sussex both agreed getting him back home to a local hospital the best option."

No, the mother and surgeon didn't agree that at all.

The best option was having the Sussex hospital perform an operation on him as soon as possible. The surgeon was already there, ffs.

" And to anyone who is interested he has been extremely brave "

No, he wasn't.

He made such a fuss about having his Dad there that he ended up being taken away from a place that would have treated him there and then

"and has had a successful operation to rebuild his big toe and repair his foot he will be undergoing further hospital treatment on his foot as he grows but is happy to be home now!"

So his injuries were so severe that the mother didn't have him operated on at the hospital where he was.

She disgusts me.

"To the ignorant people saying compensation get a life he is a 10 year old boy. "
And?
There is nothing to stop the parents putting in a claim.
You seem to know an awful lot about this. Were you there?Did you see it?
"1st he wasn't jumping its a 4 and a half foot bollard like to see a full man jump it. 2nd the post had rotted and was not attached 3rd have a look at CCTV and it is impossible for you to knock over a half ton bollard then run in front of it and get your foot trapped under it , (someone walking past knocked the post my accident)"
You seem to know an awful lot about this. Were you there?Did you see it?
"Finally the child has a twin sister who was beside herself who witnessed this."
The twin didn't see the bollard fall.
None of the party did.
" The boy wanted his Dad"
That's understandable.
" who was in London the mother and the surgeon from the Royal Sussex both agreed getting him back home to a local hospital the best option."
No, the mother and surgeon didn't agree that at all.
The best option was having the Sussex hospital perform an operation on him as soon as possible. The surgeon was already there, ffs.
" And to anyone who is interested he has been extremely brave "
No, he wasn't.
He made such a fuss about having his Dad there that he ended up being taken away from a place that would have treated him there and then
"and has had a successful operation to rebuild his big toe and repair his foot he will be undergoing further hospital treatment on his foot as he grows but is happy to be home now!"
So his injuries were so severe that the mother didn't have him operated on at the hospital where he was.
She disgusts me.ok,jared

paul76 wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.

I have lived in this city for over 40 yrs ! What has happened to little boy is devastating for all of the family I have children my self ! I walk down the seafront a lot with my dog I have only seen good what the seafront officers do from finding lost children to saving many people's life over the years ! 1 issue has happened over the whole summer ! And the council are not doing their job properly ! I have seen the officers as far down as saltdene they have miles of Coast to look after! Brighton seafront has been extra packed this year as such a good summer! As for traders they love a moan I'm sure they love the sound of their own voice ! And now they will be moaning about the weather !

[quote][p][bold]paul76[/bold] wrote:
Hmmmm. Maybe he shouldn't have been jumping on them. Doubt it just fell over on its own without help.[/p][/quote]I have lived in this city for over 40 yrs ! What has happened to little boy is devastating for all of the family I have children my self ! I walk down the seafront a lot with my dog I have only seen good what the seafront officers do from finding lost children to saving many people's life over the years ! 1 issue has happened over the whole summer ! And the council are not doing their job properly ! I have seen the officers as far down as saltdene they have miles of Coast to look after! Brighton seafront has been extra packed this year as such a good summer! As for traders they love a moan I'm sure they love the sound of their own voice ! And now they will be moaning about the weather !Joshuaheath

I wasn't present, I don't know anyone involved, and I don't work for the council or any of the potential agencies involved.

From the start, people were suggesting that a compensation claim might be in the offing. The existence of the image showing the foot and fallen bollard supports this. Lisa says that the family group didn't take pictures, and yet there is one.

I have two issues with the image. Those bollards are very heavy. If it had fallen over and landed on a foot, it would have been the top of the bollard, not the base. See how the rest of the bollard is well clear of the ground.

The top of the bollard traveling at even the slowest possible speed would have shattered a child's foot clad only in those flimsy shoes. That plainly hasn't happened. It was claimed that the foot turned black and blue instantly, but there is no sign of that in the image.

A ten-year-old child would have been in absolute agony, yet the image suggests that the picture was taken in relaxed circumstances.

I cannot understand how the big toe allegedly took the brunt and yet the heel had received damage too. It is claimed that the toe required 'rebuilding' and that "the foot has been very badly crushed." The one in the image clearly wasn't crushed and certainly wouldn't didn't require rebuilding. Further, the Royal Sussex would have operated immediately without question on discovering a crushed foot.

There is a complete absence of blood.

And why the need for a picture? The claimed serious injuries should have had the family's attention focused solely on securing medical attention.

I cannot understand why the emergency services didn't attend. It suggests to me that the last thing the family wanted was the authorities getting involved. We aren't told how the child got to hospital, but I suggest that it wasn't in an ambulance.

Finally, why did Ms Kirk feel the need to contact the council? A member of its staff was at the scene with the family group, so the council would have been made aware of the incident withing moments, and she knew that. She's also aware that the bollard has been removed, so she knows the council knows.

There are no witnesses, there is no contact with the emergency services, there is no evidence that a hospital was visited, no comments from staff at the Royal Sussex (that could be lax reporting by this newspaper) and there is no appeal for witnesses to come forward.

I would advise the family pursuing the council for compensation, because it will fail. One chap on here claimed "someone walking past knocked the post y accident". If that is true, then the claim would be against that person.

I've found this thread very troubling.
I wasn't present, I don't know anyone involved, and I don't work for the council or any of the potential agencies involved.
From the start, people were suggesting that a compensation claim might be in the offing. The existence of the image showing the foot and fallen bollard supports this. Lisa says that the family group didn't take pictures, and yet there is one.
I have two issues with the image. Those bollards are very heavy. If it had fallen over and landed on a foot, it would have been the top of the bollard, not the base. See how the rest of the bollard is well clear of the ground.
The top of the bollard traveling at even the slowest possible speed would have shattered a child's foot clad only in those flimsy shoes. That plainly hasn't happened. It was claimed that the foot turned black and blue instantly, but there is no sign of that in the image.
A ten-year-old child would have been in absolute agony, yet the image suggests that the picture was taken in relaxed circumstances.
I cannot understand how the big toe allegedly took the brunt and yet the heel had received damage too. It is claimed that the toe required 'rebuilding' and that "the foot has been very badly crushed." The one in the image clearly wasn't crushed and certainly wouldn't didn't require rebuilding. Further, the Royal Sussex would have operated immediately without question on discovering a crushed foot.
There is a complete absence of blood.
And why the need for a picture? The claimed serious injuries should have had the family's attention focused solely on securing medical attention.
I cannot understand why the emergency services didn't attend. It suggests to me that the last thing the family wanted was the authorities getting involved. We aren't told how the child got to hospital, but I suggest that it wasn't in an ambulance.
Finally, why did Ms Kirk feel the need to contact the council? A member of its staff was at the scene with the family group, so the council would have been made aware of the incident withing moments, and she knew that. She's also aware that the bollard has been removed, so she knows the council knows.
There are no witnesses, there is no contact with the emergency services, there is no evidence that a hospital was visited, no comments from staff at the Royal Sussex (that could be lax reporting by this newspaper) and there is no appeal for witnesses to come forward.
I would advise the family pursuing the council for compensation, because it will fail. One chap on here claimed "someone walking past knocked the post y accident". If that is true, then the claim would be against that person.Fred'smate